I think you're forgetting that public schools serve a purpose other than enriching the wealthy. I have such a hard time with takes like these. Would you have public schools turning away children that can't pay?
It was sarcasm, intended to (at the very least) draw attention to the possibility of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", and the perils of focusing on imaginary "welfare leeches" at the expense of general prosperity.
I almost added an /s, and perhaps I should have. haha
I hope you realize this is already the case. Property taxes are voted on locally and go to pay for local schools and there is vehement opposition towards redistributing funding for schools state wide. People move to certain cities where schools are known to be good (and no surprise, those cities also have lots of generous property tax-based and PTA-based funding for schools).
I might add that the people who can afford it move to those certain cities. But yes, you're right, we already do a great job making sure that not all children have equal opportunity.
Yeah you should have. I was about to comment on how toxic this kind of worldview is, but held back. At any rate, this kind of thinking ensures a world where opportunity is increasingly siloed such that even the best and brightest wind up losing for want of wealthy benefactors.
The 'well we have mandatory things already, so why not this also?' is what you are using to argue against the vaccine. I think a little nuanced thinking goes a long way when comparing all of the examples you proposed.
Please note I am not arguing against the vaccine. I am fully vaccinated. I am against limiting parts of society to people that haven't been vaccinated no matter the reason why. There is a big difference (I have all my vaccines, my son also has all his vaccines, and he may or may not get the covid vaccine depending on the recommendations for his age group).
Microplastics include any fragment of plastic less than 5mm in length, and nanoplastics (less than 100nm) are much smaller than would be visibly noticeable.
I actually read the article and it has nothing to do with hating bitcoin. It delves into the logistics of a theoretical attack against Bitcoin's proof-of-work blockchain. Quite interesting if you're willing to put down your pitchfork.
It's just a 51% attack with extra steps. PoW requires that you do the work. Making a big long fake chain with higher difficulty than the existing chain requires expending even more resources than the existing network. Not to mention you have to keep updating your fake chain every time a legit block gets accepted because all of the hashes will change. The idea is garbage.
Can transfer of value be done with much less power spent (especially if decentralized)? If it there is a superior alternative, wouldn't you be referencing it by name?
Why does it need to be decentralized? That's you shoehorning crypto-anarchism into the equation. I am fine with a centralized currency, just as I am with a centralized group of people making critical decisions for the country (governments).